Fwd: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - REPLY NEEDED!
Dear all, Please find Jennifer's consent below. Best. Lars Begin forwarded message: From: "Jennifer Chung" <jen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: 20 Jun 2015 20:10:00 GMT-3 To: "'Lars Hoffmann'" <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>>, <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - REPLY NEEDED! Dear Lars, Since I still haven't received the email from the mailing list - might be a subscription problem? I would like to record my consent to the change suggested in your email below (pasted in its entirety). Also in the case that this does not make it to the mailing list (subscription problem?) please forward my response to the list. Thank you! Best Regards, [dotasia-signature] Jennifer Chung, Policy & Organisational Relations DotAsia Organisation<http://www.dot.asia/>, From.Asia / For.Asia E-mail: jen@xxxxxxxx<mailto:jen@xxxxxxxx> Skype: jennifer.r.chung ---------- Dear all, Please all read this careful and try to reply on list as soon as possible. It has come to our attention that there was an important term mistakenly used in Recommendation #4 of our Final Report The Recommendation reads currently: Recommendation #4 The Working Group recommends that, regardless of the language(s)/script(s) used, it is assured that the data fields are consistent to standards in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), relevant L Policy, Additional Whois Information Policy (AWIP) and any other applicable polices. Entered contact information data are verified, in accordance with the aforementioned Policies and Agreements and the language/script used must be easily identifiable. Level of consensus: Full Consensus The term OEverified^1 in the second sentence of the recommendation has legal implications and would change significantly the contractual obligations of the Contracted Parties. As the substance of the Final Report on that particular issue makes it clear that "validation" was intended to be used instead of ^3verification^2. Both co-Chairs agree that this is a clerical mistake as the Group meant to use the term OEvalidate^1 not OEverifiy^1 and it should be changed accordingly. With your consent we would like change the working to reflect the actual meaning of what the Group meant to recommend. In order to prevent delaying the GNSO Council^1s vote on our Final Report, this would have to happen as soon as possible so that the Motion to adopt can be changed accordingly and in time for Wednesday^1s Council discussion and vote. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars